6 ms·

Not to challenge you, but what do you mean when you say " Historically speaking, competent and well-run monarchies outperform republics in almost all metrics ex

by hooande 16y ago

Not to challenge you, but what do you mean when you say " Historically speaking, competent and well-run monarchies outperform republics in almost all metrics except maybe military"? The United States seems to have done pretty well as a republic in terms of average quality of life and gross domestic product. While it hasn't controlled as much land as the largest Roman Empire, I'd think that it has done more per capita than any form of nation in history.

nopinsight 16y ago
This got me thinking about Singapore, which has recently overtook the US on the basis of GDP (PPP) per capita. Singapore's system is officially democratic, but in fact quite authoritarian with competent rulers. The direction of the country has been in control by the Lee family for decades, but they put a lot of smart 'commoners' to some of the highest posts in the country. And given the track record, few can argue against the ability of the Lee family in the areas of economic and overall material development. The city-state also has little corruption and its citizens receive some of the best education in the world. Does the example imply that such a "meritocratic monarchy" is the most rapid way to develop a country economically?
- wazoox 16y ago
  If we consider the way South Korea went from profound under-development to first-world in 50 years under a somewhat autocratic republic with heavy economic dirigisme, yes, probably.
jacquesm 16y ago
> The United States seems to have done pretty well as a republic in terms of average quality of life and gross domestic product. While it hasn't controlled as much land as the largest Roman Empire, I'd think that it has done more per capita than any form of nation in history. I think you are overlooking Switzerland.
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  "You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." - Orson Welles in The Third Man
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's a humoristic but completely wrong view of Switzerland and the Swiss.
qw 16y ago
The United States has a lot of cultural influence on other countries, but when you give examples such as "average quality of life" and "gross domestic product" I doubt that the US has done more per capita than any form of nation in history. Could you give any examples to back your claims (per capita)? Edit: Here's an example: USA Norway GDP $46,381 $79,085 (best) GINI 45.0 25.8 (best) HDI 0.956 0.971 (best) Unemployment 9.5% 3,2% (best) Another example is the public dept. While the United States has a huge dept, Norway's net asset position is positive. The government could repay all government debt without raising new loans. According to OECD, the United States ranks third worst in inequality and poverty of the 30 member states: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/oecd-o22.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/oecd-o22.shtml Considering that Norway, as many other countries has a more inclusive welfare system, the poor have a better quality of life as well, with free (total) health care and free education.
- cstross 16y ago
  With cherry-picking, you can prove anything. Norway is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and third largest natural gas exporter, but has a population of 4.8 million. With petrochemical exports accounting for 20% of GDP on top of a western model economy, of course per-capita GDP is going to be high. A more interesting comparison would be with the other leading first world countries that don't have gigantic petrochemical industries to skew the figures and don't share the same governmental system. UK would be one option (constitutional monarchy); France would be another (republic, but not based on the US model). (Hint: both the UK and France beat the US into a cocked hat on healthcare; the UK is significantly ahead on unemployment, and France is way ahead on GINI.)
  - qw 16y ago
    ok, let's take Denmark as an example. They are ranked as number 32 in net exports of crude oil, so it's a much smaller part of the GDP. GDP: $56,115 (better) GNI: 24.7 (much better) HDI: 0.955 (the same) Unemployment: 6.3% (better) If we are talking about advantages, let's not forget that there are 310 million citizens (56 times more than Denmark) who all share the same continent, language, currency and government. The home market is huge, which certainly gives companies a significant advantage compared to other countries. This is something that can be seen when companies starts competing internationally. Even a medium sized US company (relative to the home market) has a lot of muscle compared to the average Danish company. My point is that we can't state that the US political system is superior by design. We have to consider other factors such as the large home market and the political influence that comes with a larger economy and military.
throw_away 16y ago
the US at its largest extent was about 50% larger than the roman empire at its largest extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires_at_their_greatest_extent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_emp...)
lionhearted 16y ago
> "Historically speaking, competent and well-run monarchies outperform republics in almost all metrics except maybe military" Gosh, this is an incredibly long discussion and I don't know where to start. I tried writing a reply and I'm just not accurately capturing it - my ability to articulate all the history I've read in a short summary isn't so good. Let me try, though. First, yes, the United States is amazing, it was the most well-designed republic in history during the early years. There's been times when republican government was suspended and dictator/imperial leaders came to power. Since I don't want to make this overly political, without naming names I'll say there's been two American presidents that acted very much like dictator-type emperors. They took emergency powers, suspended civil rights including habeas corpus, drafted men into military service, seized industry, and conquered large tracks of land. Both of those guys were popular but quite brutal and oppressive to people who opposed them, including arresting people for peaceful protest. The first of these guys even arrested elected officials that didn't agree with his war! Both of them seemed poised to control the United States for a long time, but then they both died in office, and the next administrations quickly put more safeguards to make sure America didn't get a tradition of presidents doing whatever the heck they wanted. It's a really strange case - these guys are generally seen as good guys, and were good guys in some ways, so history treats them favorably, but they were both very dictator/monarchy-like once coming into power, ignoring the Senate and Supreme Court. Prior to them, I think the early American federal government was one of the finest government designs in history, so yes that is pretty incredible. Though, the USA has been gradually sliding towards what tends to happen in republics with corruption, politics, factions, and all that. Generally speaking, you get lots of politics, bureaucracy, waste in a republic, and lots of corruption once people come into power. There's corrupt monarchies, but a good monarch can almost completely end corruption and waste in a short time. I'm thinking of someone like Tokugawa Yoshimune - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Yoshimune http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Yoshimune Or more controversially, the Napoleonic codes of law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code It's very hard for a republic to get corruption, waste, and crime to zero, it almost never happens. It is very possible got a good monarch to clean house and get corruption, waste, and crime to zero. Beyond that, my, where do I start? I'd recommend looking at comparable nations at comparable eras of history and see if republics or monarchies produced more art, science, architecture, trade, general happiness and health and prosperity, and things like that (admittedly difficult to measure). I'd read some thoughts by smart people on what happens in democracy through history, and monarchy. I'd look at the Federalist Papers to see how America was designed, I'd also strongly recommend Machiavelli's The Prince which has some analysis on the difference between monarchy and republics, and then I'd look at some of the Greek and Roman thoughts on the matter. The height of Rome came after Rome transitioned from a republic to an imperial monarchy, but this same transition sowed the seeds of its downfall with succession crises and the power of the Praetorian Guard. Likewise, the Ottomans and the Janissaries... The most insightful eras for me is when there were a number of small states with similar resources and technology in a local era. The monarchic states in Renaissance Italy, the Greek city states, different eras of civil war in China and Japan... republicanism traditionally underperformed monarchy on average, but was less prone to catastrophically bad leadership, with the exception of rulers who came to power democratically but then seized power (that's what happened with the Chancellorship of Germany, there's been between 2 and 5 hardcore dictator American presidents depending on how you define it, etc). It's a large topic - if you have specific questions, I'll try my best to give a starting block of where to read and learn.

by hooande 16y ago

nopinsight 16y ago

This got me thinking about Singapore, which has recently overtook the US on the basis of GDP (PPP) per capita. Singapore's system is officially democratic, but in fact quite authoritarian with competent rulers. The direction of the country has been in control by the Lee family for decades, but they put a lot of smart 'commoners' to some of the highest posts in the country. And given the track record, few can argue against the ability of the Lee family in the areas of economic and overall material development. The city-state also has little corruption and its citizens receive some of the best education in the world. Does the example imply that such a "meritocratic monarchy" is the most rapid way to develop a country economically?

wazoox 16y ago
If we consider the way South Korea went from profound under-development to first-world in 50 years under a somewhat autocratic republic with heavy economic dirigisme, yes, probably.

jacquesm 16y ago

> The United States seems to have done pretty well as a republic in terms of average quality of life and gross domestic product. While it hasn't controlled as much land as the largest Roman Empire, I'd think that it has done more per capita than any form of nation in history. I think you are overlooking Switzerland.

waterlesscloud 16y ago
"You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." - Orson Welles in The Third Man
- jacquesm 16y ago
  That's a humoristic but completely wrong view of Switzerland and the Swiss.

qw 16y ago

The United States has a lot of cultural influence on other countries, but when you give examples such as "average quality of life" and "gross domestic product" I doubt that the US has done more per capita than any form of nation in history. Could you give any examples to back your claims (per capita)? Edit: Here's an example: USA Norway GDP $46,381 $79,085 (best) GINI 45.0 25.8 (best) HDI 0.956 0.971 (best) Unemployment 9.5% 3,2% (best) Another example is the public dept. While the United States has a huge dept, Norway's net asset position is positive. The government could repay all government debt without raising new loans. According to OECD, the United States ranks third worst in inequality and poverty of the 30 member states: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/oecd-o22.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/oecd-o22.shtml Considering that Norway, as many other countries has a more inclusive welfare system, the poor have a better quality of life as well, with free (total) health care and free education.

cstross 16y ago
With cherry-picking, you can prove anything. Norway is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and third largest natural gas exporter, but has a population of 4.8 million. With petrochemical exports accounting for 20% of GDP on top of a western model economy, of course per-capita GDP is going to be high. A more interesting comparison would be with the other leading first world countries that don't have gigantic petrochemical industries to skew the figures and don't share the same governmental system. UK would be one option (constitutional monarchy); France would be another (republic, but not based on the US model). (Hint: both the UK and France beat the US into a cocked hat on healthcare; the UK is significantly ahead on unemployment, and France is way ahead on GINI.)
- qw 16y ago
  ok, let's take Denmark as an example. They are ranked as number 32 in net exports of crude oil, so it's a much smaller part of the GDP. GDP: $56,115 (better) GNI: 24.7 (much better) HDI: 0.955 (the same) Unemployment: 6.3% (better) If we are talking about advantages, let's not forget that there are 310 million citizens (56 times more than Denmark) who all share the same continent, language, currency and government. The home market is huge, which certainly gives companies a significant advantage compared to other countries. This is something that can be seen when companies starts competing internationally. Even a medium sized US company (relative to the home market) has a lot of muscle compared to the average Danish company. My point is that we can't state that the US political system is superior by design. We have to consider other factors such as the large home market and the political influence that comes with a larger economy and military.

throw_away 16y ago

the US at its largest extent was about 50% larger than the roman empire at its largest extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires_at_their_greatest_extent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_emp...)

lionhearted 16y ago

> "Historically speaking, competent and well-run monarchies outperform republics in almost all metrics except maybe military" Gosh, this is an incredibly long discussion and I don't know where to start. I tried writing a reply and I'm just not accurately capturing it - my ability to articulate all the history I've read in a short summary isn't so good. Let me try, though. First, yes, the United States is amazing, it was the most well-designed republic in history during the early years. There's been times when republican government was suspended and dictator/imperial leaders came to power. Since I don't want to make this overly political, without naming names I'll say there's been two American presidents that acted very much like dictator-type emperors. They took emergency powers, suspended civil rights including habeas corpus, drafted men into military service, seized industry, and conquered large tracks of land. Both of those guys were popular but quite brutal and oppressive to people who opposed them, including arresting people for peaceful protest. The first of these guys even arrested elected officials that didn't agree with his war! Both of them seemed poised to control the United States for a long time, but then they both died in office, and the next administrations quickly put more safeguards to make sure America didn't get a tradition of presidents doing whatever the heck they wanted. It's a really strange case - these guys are generally seen as good guys, and were good guys in some ways, so history treats them favorably, but they were both very dictator/monarchy-like once coming into power, ignoring the Senate and Supreme Court. Prior to them, I think the early American federal government was one of the finest government designs in history, so yes that is pretty incredible. Though, the USA has been gradually sliding towards what tends to happen in republics with corruption, politics, factions, and all that. Generally speaking, you get lots of politics, bureaucracy, waste in a republic, and lots of corruption once people come into power. There's corrupt monarchies, but a good monarch can almost completely end corruption and waste in a short time. I'm thinking of someone like Tokugawa Yoshimune - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Yoshimune http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Yoshimune Or more controversially, the Napoleonic codes of law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code It's very hard for a republic to get corruption, waste, and crime to zero, it almost never happens. It is very possible got a good monarch to clean house and get corruption, waste, and crime to zero. Beyond that, my, where do I start? I'd recommend looking at comparable nations at comparable eras of history and see if republics or monarchies produced more art, science, architecture, trade, general happiness and health and prosperity, and things like that (admittedly difficult to measure). I'd read some thoughts by smart people on what happens in democracy through history, and monarchy. I'd look at the Federalist Papers to see how America was designed, I'd also strongly recommend Machiavelli's The Prince which has some analysis on the difference between monarchy and republics, and then I'd look at some of the Greek and Roman thoughts on the matter. The height of Rome came after Rome transitioned from a republic to an imperial monarchy, but this same transition sowed the seeds of its downfall with succession crises and the power of the Praetorian Guard. Likewise, the Ottomans and the Janissaries... The most insightful eras for me is when there were a number of small states with similar resources and technology in a local era. The monarchic states in Renaissance Italy, the Greek city states, different eras of civil war in China and Japan... republicanism traditionally underperformed monarchy on average, but was less prone to catastrophically bad leadership, with the exception of rulers who came to power democratically but then seized power (that's what happened with the Chancellorship of Germany, there's been between 2 and 5 hardcore dictator American presidents depending on how you define it, etc). It's a large topic - if you have specific questions, I'll try my best to give a starting block of where to read and learn.